gonewththekimel

The Confessions of the Latter Day Augustine are back. I will update the journal with personal updates and musings, doubtful as before that it will find a readership, but writing more for myself than an audience. Still, an audience would certainly cater to my vanity and result in a source of honest pleasure, so for those of you who come across this journal and are curious about David Kimel, I am sincerely and humbly honored to welcome you or welcome you back.

This first entry will be nothing but fun--my thoughts on the new American Film Institute's Top Six Movies (a homage to my username on this site), and on Around the World in 80 Days and The Searchers, two other films I'd like to briefly review here because they suggest something important about the critical process.

 

Taste in movies is subjective. However, by the specific criteria outlined by the AFI, Gone With the Wind should be near the top of any of their lists, mentioning as they do historical and cultural impacts in addition to more holistic evaluations. Consider these points about the new "top five," and consider what they suggest about the nature of critical discourse; all-time best lists themselves are nothing but very temporary images projected through the lens of of contemporary bias. Ah, how poetic--how could the world live without my florid prose for two years now?

********1. Citizen Kane, 1941******** If I were to try my hand at forecasting the future, I will guess that eventually, this flick will get displaced by "The Godfather" for the number 1 spot on these lists, if they continue; then again, considering that the closest we've had to a modern day prophet has been an obese woman from the Pacific Northwest affecting a Jamaican accent, I should perhaps put aside my crystal ball.  Whatever the case, my guess has has nothing to do with the quality of Citizen Kane and everything to do with contemporary critical discourse. In the 1940s and 1950s, people praised The Grapes of Wrath as the greatest film ever directed, and now it's not even mentioned on most all-time 100 lists; Mrs. Miniver, a WW2 film with such enormous social impacts that speeches from it were dropped over the Nazi Reich, was seen in its day as sort of a contemporary Schindler's List--a modern movie that Meant something with a capital M. Now, it's unpopular, rarely viewed, and badly dated.

Citizen Kane is a great film--it pioneered techniques and a "screw you, Establishment" mindset that would both become harbingers of non-studio pictures and actors in the 1960s and 1970s when...surprise surprise..."Kane" began supplanting "Wrath" and the politically incorrect GWTW and Birth of a Nation near the tops of lists of "serious" Critics. It's become such a cliche to praise its genius that it's now at the top of almost every list. This legacy will come with a price--its Godchild is creeping up on it, and it can't help but think about it's own forebearers and what happened to their reputations. Long live the contemporary King...but for how long?

********2. The Godfather, 1972******** This movie is actually not a favorite of mine, despite my knowing scores and scores of people who absolutely love it as their all-time best. There's just something about it that doesn't draw me in--too much of an emphasis on plot, I think, and the main character's journey, and not enough on supporting character development--The Godfather, to me, seems like the Michael Corleone show with an extended cameo by Marlon Brando.  

Interestingly, of all the films in the new top 5, this one has the most in common with the Wind in terms of its greatness. It's the story of a ruthless survivor who inhabits a world of ethnic  stereotypes. It was based on a popular novel. It has been seen by an obscene number of people and made an incredible amount of money over time. It inspired other art forms (the Sopranos is a fantastic child of the Godfather kicking to this day). It swept the world. It became a franchise that represents a shadow of its glorious original. It was driven by the ego of a single man. It was literary and intelligent. A century or so after The Godfather's release, its reputation will probably seem like Wind's today--many will love it, it will still have major impacts, but all in all, it will be a crime drama from one hundred years ago. It's certainly less divisive than Wind is, but we'll get to some of those reasons later--it has nothing to do with art and everything to do with gender, genre, and genes (actually, racial politics, but the opening "g" sounds are more poetic than precision).

********3. Casablanca, 1942******** This is another movie whose popularity I understand but which I don't consider an all-time best on a visceral level; perhaps I'm reluctant to include it in my top ten because I find it overrated. It's OK--it was a solid anti-war movie from the 1940s that had just as much propaganda as Mrs. Miniver but starred more memorable actors who had more abiding careers in Hollywood. Its script and its general feel epitomized a snappy style of writing which evolved into Noir. Bergman was fantastic, as was Bogart--two actors who were always good at playing versions of themselves, like John Wayne. It still moves people. It's a monument to classic Hollywood.

But...I don't know. I guess the movie doesn't have me fooled. The political message reminds me it's a movie. This is no work of individual genius, or even a deliberate collaborative effort meant to produce something specific--it was thrown together by talented people, and it's more fun to watch than a lot of other movies (new or old), but it was not out to reinvent the wheel. The character of Sam is less offensive than the slaves in GWTW because he's not a slave, but he really has no more humanity than Mammy (and he's definitely a lot less memorable than Prissy). Bergman did a good job at fleshing out Ilsa, but the role is really nothing very different from other "heroine" roles just like it. It can seem heavy-handed at times (but it's part of its charm). It never influenced the art of filmmaking/the history of the industry like other films. People look back on it fondly, and it has its place in popular culture. But it's a nostalgic addition to the list--a Classic because people say it is and believe it to be one, a Classic in spite of itself.

********Raging Bull, 1980******** This movie is considered Martin Scorsese's masterpiece. With memorable shots and a powerhouse performance by DeNiro (not just solid, but wonderful), it's an iconic film of the 1980s and contains a memorable long-take that viewers won't soon forget. It even presages the kind of ultra-violent "art" that would become popular over the next two decades and on into the present era. The movie has a signature style, and it seems to "say" something. For those fans who aren't sure what it's trying to say, it's black and white and it has violence in it, so it seems important. To be sure, even though I personally find it cold, I won't deny that by AFI's criteria, it deserves a place somewhere on the list in the top 100.

The fact that this is no top-ten film will be borne out when it plunges into the 20s or lower on the next iteration of the list. No one really thinks that this movie has had more economic, cultural, socio-political, and long-lasting influences than GWTW or the 3 movies ranked above it; individual fans might say that they prefer the movie to older ones, but by the socio-cultural standards of AFI (remember, not just subjective "quality,") this movie's position at 4 is very tenuous. Could Scorsese's Oscar, a wish by AFI panelists to see it higher on the list than before (like surely happened with The Searchers and City Lights), and the fact that violent movies as Art are now in vogue have anything to do with its position? I'll kill the suspense: the answer is, yes.

********5. Singin' in the Rain, 1952******** What a metamorphosis this film has had. In the 1950s, it was just another Technicolor Musical. Then, Brecht made an appearance among critical circles, and everything changed. “Brechtian” was now a type of art-form, and critics began looking for movies that focused on themselves—the art of moviemaking. This movie was rediscovered. It climbed the polls in Sight and Sound. Its great choreography and “classic Hollywood” feeling make it an important film for critics and directors. It became a shorthand for the greatness of the grand studio system of the 1950s—no Augustan Empire of the 1930s, but no patchwork of barbarian kingdoms either. It's too bad that the great dizzy-blonde role played by Hagen didn't win a Best Supporting Actress Award.

However, there is, to me, a hollowness to Singin’ in the Rain. I personally don’t find movies that focus on dance to be as entertaining as those that focus on character development, but this is just a personal preference. Its plot-line is enjoyable but has nothing of real pathos or realism in it—make no mistake about it, it’s films like this that are about the spectacle of it all. It had nowhere near the artistic, historical, popular-cultural, political, or economic impacts of #s 1-3 on the current list. It doesn’t belong this high, and it will fall, but this is a movie that will probably stay in the top ten. Like Citizen Kane and The Godfather, it’s shielded by contemporary critical consensus.

**********6. Gone With the Wind, 1939********** This movie is my all-time favorite, and I will defend it as high art to the death. Given that this is the case, I freely admit my bias. However, I think that although taste in films is subjective, by the standards of the AFI, this is the movie that belongs on top. Interestingly enough, Roger Ebert (no final authority on films, but the most prominent contemporary critical voice in the world of pop culture and a great writer whose opinions I respect) would not name this film in his personal top ten and was glad Citizen Kane beat it out…but said ten years ago when the first list came out that by the selection criteria that the American Film Institute provided, he thought that this would win the top spot. Evidently, the favorite movie of very many women, gay men, entrepreneurs, history-buffs, and classic movie fans of all ages has something about it to make it survive on these lists despite a conspicuous LACK of contemporary critical appreciation. The movie’s director was no auteur; no four hour melodramas are still being made; the film’s discourse and perspective is just as politically incorrect as The Searchers, concerning a more highly visible ethnic group; it contains scenes that might be read as glorifying female submission (though I argue that this is not the case).

Why does GWTW win out? Because, in the words of a critic from the 1970s who was ironically trying to denigrate it, it’s the moviest of movies. No truly popular film has been longer. None has made more money. None has been seen by more people. None involved so many of the top-talents in contemporary Hollywood from almost every different studio (MGM, Warner’s, RKO, you name it). None can boast the same historical importance or social impacts (the first black Academy Award, a tremendous worldwide reception during the 1940s throughout the globe, the death of the star-contract system from the DeHavilland lawsuit, the staggering profits that saved MGM, the use of prominent profanity in movies, the pioneering color camera-work, the giant television reception, its continued manifestations in popular culture as books and musicals, etc.) And, in my opinion, none have the depth of characterization, engaging plot, scores of memorable scenes, and once-in-a-lifetime performances of this movie. David O’Selznick was no outsider-renegade like Welles, but he was the rebel prince of the Studio-System, and he harnessed every power in Hollywood to create a highly personalized, consummate work of art that stayed faithfully true to a novel rich in symbolism, ambiguity, and contemporary meaning. A movie waiting to be rediscovered by an eloquent film critic, GWTW is a valentine to the end of an era, and ushered in a new type of filmmaking. It is the Sistine Chapel of movies (as I or another critic once called it--I don't remember) and the most recognizable product of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Those whom the film has touched will remain forever grateful to it—it’s the favorite movie of dreamers and smart black-sheep, the very qualities of its protagonists, and (some would say) the United States itself. It’s not just the moviest of movies, but in some senses, the most AMERICAN of movies too, even in its alleged racism and sexism. Think about it. 

For fun, here are my thoughts on Around the World in 80 Days (the "best picture" of 1956), and "The Searchers" from that same year (now regarded by most critics as the best picture from that year). In fact, I think both of them were severely limited films, speaking more to the idea of critical consensus meaning less than historical impacts and abiding legacy when evaluating films.

********Around the World in 80 Days, 1956******** I thought this movie was atrocious. Let's face it--everything about it from its self-congratulatory and weird introduction to its wooden characters and cheesy "ethnic" music affirm the fact that it's an empty spectacle. I know that this criticism is often hurled at films, but in this case, most things really happen for the sake of spectacle, not character development. Why does their balloon land in Spain? To show off sexy flamenco costumes and Hispanic stereotypes. Why does the Frenchman fight a bull? To show off a Mexican comic's physical talents. Why is an Indian princess a white woman in blackface? To show off Shirley Maclaine's rack. And the cameos, oh God, the cameos. How many times can the camera pan and linger deliberately on the face of a nothing character to highlight the withered ruin of a 30s or 40s matinee idol reduced to appearing in this "extravaganza"?

Now, I love some cheesy movies. Those Ten Commandments were all ten hoots, and The King and I is great too. But this movie--the definition of an expensive, undeserving winner (in my opinion--no offense to fans of the movie; there are fun elements too). Too bad High Noon lost to The Greatest Show on Earth and The Ten Commandments lost to this--1956 would have been a banner year to honor DeMille.

********The Searchers, 1956******** I recently saw this movie and thought it was very good--extraordinary visuals, a compelling plot-line with some very tense scenes, beautiful individual shots, and even a good soundtrack. One also has to admire its lofty reputation and influence over several important filmmmakers and critics--John Ford was a gifted storyteller whose legacy lives on in many of the best contemporary movies. There is something to be said for any movie that can remain popular 50 years after release--I'm sure its fans are thrilled by its recent AFI jump.

With that being said, though, I'm afraid that I do agree that it's overrated as a masterpiece of cinema, in my opinion. The reasons are as follows: 

A) There are several hokey elements that verge on camp--"That'll be the day," white actors cast as Indian braves, the atrocious acting of "Old Mose," the preposterous subplot with the skip-to-my-loo man, John Wayne's son (notice his father breaking character as he looks on the boy's scene admiringly), etc. These are facets of the movie that suggest it was made as a "solid" Western but wasn't taken to be Art with a capital "A"--no one was out to reinvent the wheel here. 

B) The Native American issue. Don't get me wrong--I'm not overly PC. But there's a general lack of regard for authenticity with regard to Indian issues that suggests something important about the motives and perspectives of the filmmakers. Specifically, the "Comanches" are not Comanche at all, but another tribe (I believe Navajo), and the "war song" was actually a popular squaw chant for weddings; the chief, the only substantial speaking role, is a white man. In this regard, even Gone With the Wind is more racially progressive--at least blacks play blacks in that movie. Of course, it doesn't matter--this isn't a documentary about Native Americans, and the perspective of the film is with Ethan. However, the use of "any Indian tribe" to stand in for Comanches shows that the movie is really not that pioneering when it comes to its racial lessons--it's more "the end of an era" than a hint at a new kind of filmmaking with regard to this issue.

3. John Wayne. This will be a divisive opinion, but I think he was an actor of limited abilities--all of his roles are virtually identical, and while he delivers "solid" performances, there is not much depth. I think his performance here was not that different from what's usually seen with regard to Wayne--nothing too creative. Other actors could have done more--like Gary Cooper. I never got any indication later in the film of Ethan's thinking about Martha, for example (he could have added some pathos to the scenes where he saw the young lovers).

So, all in all, I think it's a good movie, but not a great movie, and definitely an overrated movie. But in terms of its place in film history and its ability to "stay admired"--first rate. I think that I can understand from a 1950s perspective why High Noon was honored by the Academy (it only lost the top honor for literally political reasons)but The Searchers was totally ignored. High Noon is something different--the main action is psychological, it's shot in real time, it has a surprise twist in the ending, it uses character development to fill out the movie rather than just visuals, it's about a less obvious time period ("the end" of the Old West, when it was starting to become what the Aunt in the Searchers would call a nice place to live, and was losing the one for all and one for all attitude), etc. High Noon is the more "modern" movie in my book; The Searchers is like a magnificent ruin of an era gone by.

(Stagecoach (1939) may be my favorite western, though--what a great character study. It's a toss-up between it and High Noon.

***

I am happy to be writing again--thank you for reading.